Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the judgment granting the defendants’ motion to strike Daniel Farias’s putative class action complaint concerning tip credits, minimum wage regulations, and recordkeeping requirements. The court held that the applicable regulations did not provide a private right of action for the alleged recordkeeping violations and that Public Act 22-134 required claims filed after September 24, 2022, to be adjudicated under the updated regulatory scheme. The court also concluded that applying the statute did not violate the plaintiff’s due process rights because he had no vested property right in the unresolved statutory cause of action.
Holdings
- No. A violation of the recordkeeping requirements in former § 31-62-E3 does not invalidate the tip credit and does not give rise to a private cause of action under General Statutes § 31-68(a).
- Yes. Section 31-60(d)(4) applies prospectively to all covered claims filed after September 24, 2022, including claims that accrued before that date, and requires that they be adjudicated solely under § 31-60-2 of the current regulations and amendments thereto.
- No. Even assuming that § 31-60(d)(4) had a retrospective effect, its application did not violate due process because the plaintiff had no vested property right in an unfiled, purely statutory cause of action.
Questions Presented
- Whether General Statutes § 31-68(a) provides a private cause of action for violations of the recordkeeping requirements in former § 31-62-E3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
- Whether Public Act 22-134, codified at General Statutes § 31-60(d)(4), required claims filed after September 24, 2022, to be adjudicated solely under the updated wage regulation, notwithstanding that the underlying causes of action accrued under former regulations.
- Whether applying § 31-60(d)(4) to the plaintiff's claims violated federal or state constitutional due process because it impaired a vested property right.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (25)
- Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services, Inc., 354 Conn. 151, 152, 349 A.3d 570 (2026)(followed)
- Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC, 337 Conn. 248, 259 n.11, 253 A.3d 13 (2020)(followed)
- Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, 219 Conn. App. 648, 296 A.3d 173 (2023)(followed)
- Anderson v. Reel Hospitality, LLC, 233 Conn. App. 618, 342 A.3d 1095, cert. denied, 353 Conn. 926, 346 A.3d 514 (2025)(followed)
- Haworth Country Club, LLC v. United Bank, 226 Conn. App. 665, 677–78, 319 A.3d 146, cert. denied, 350 Conn. 914, 324 A.3d 791 (2024)(followed)
- In re Cole, 347 Conn. 284, 297 A.3d 151 (2023)(followed)
- Maghfour v. Waterbury, 340 Conn. 41, 262 A.3d 692 (2021)(followed and distinguished)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1994)(followed)
- Southwick at Milford Condominium Assn., Inc. v. 523 Wheelers Farm Road, Milford, LLC, 294 Conn. 311, 320, 984 A.2d 676 (2009)(followed)
- Rios v. CCMC Corp., 106 Conn. App. 810, 819, 943 A.2d 544 (2008)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.